Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, open-world behavior, but the description adds material context beyond them: pricing comes from DefiLlama's aggregated oracle with a confidence score, symbols resolve against the top 1,000 coins by market cap, ambiguous symbols list alternatives, calls are free, and errors are not charged. These details materially help an agent understand resolution and failure behavior.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The definition is front-loaded with the core purpose and then packs in resolution behavior, alternatives, cost, and error handling without filler. It is denser and longer than ideal, but nearly every clause carries actionable information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and annotations cover the safety profile. The description still supplies the complexity-relevant context an agent needs: identifier formats, oracle source, symbol-resolution policy, alternatives, pricing, and error semantics.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds useful meaning about the assets parameter: supported forms include symbols, coingecko: ids, chain-prefixed contracts, bare 0x addresses with chain, and mints, plus the 30-asset cap. It does not add much about the chain parameter beyond the schema's enum and default, keeping it below a 5.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The first sentence states a specific verb and resource: live USD price plus 24h change for up to 30 crypto assets on any chain. It also names the supported identifier formats and explicitly distinguishes itself from price_history and a sibling Solana-mint price tool, so an agent can identify its role without opening the schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The 'When to use' section explicitly routes agents to price_history for historical prices and to another server's price tool for Solana mints by address. However, this is slightly undercut by the earlier claim that this tool itself resolves 'a Solana mint', creating ambiguity about whether address-based mint pricing belongs here.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.